01-20-2006, 06:40 AM
From foreward by JP. Interesting contrast.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I should like, as a sort of a footnote (this is not the appro¬priate place for elaboration) to the old debate, to emphasise that the question involved is not only that of decentralisation. As I look at it, there are two entirely different concepts of society involved here. Even though not clearly expressed, this is implic¬it throughout Gandhijiâs discussion on the subject. One concept is that put forward by Dr Ambedkar, and accepted as the basis of the Constitution: namely, the atomised and inorganic view of society. It is this view that governs political theory and practice in the West today. The most important reason for this is that Western society itself has become, as a result of a certain form of industrialisation and economic order, an atomised mass society. Political theory and practice naturally reflect this state of affairs, and political democracy is reduced to the counting of heads. It is further natural in these circumstances for political partiesâbuilt around competing power-groupsâto be formed, leading to the establishment, not of government by peo¬ple, but of government by party: in other words, by one or another power-group.
The other is the organic or communitarian view, that puts man in his natural milieu as a responsible member of a responsible community. This view treats of man not as a particle of sand in an inorganic heap, but as a living cell in a larger organic entity. It is natural that in this view the emphasis should be laid more on âresponsibilityâ than on ârightâ, just as in the inorga¬nic view it is natural that it should be the opposite. When the individual lives in community with others, his rights flow from his responsibilities. It cannot be otherwise. That is why, in Gandhijiâs sociological thought, the emphasis is always laid upon responsibility.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I should like, as a sort of a footnote (this is not the appro¬priate place for elaboration) to the old debate, to emphasise that the question involved is not only that of decentralisation. As I look at it, there are two entirely different concepts of society involved here. Even though not clearly expressed, this is implic¬it throughout Gandhijiâs discussion on the subject. One concept is that put forward by Dr Ambedkar, and accepted as the basis of the Constitution: namely, the atomised and inorganic view of society. It is this view that governs political theory and practice in the West today. The most important reason for this is that Western society itself has become, as a result of a certain form of industrialisation and economic order, an atomised mass society. Political theory and practice naturally reflect this state of affairs, and political democracy is reduced to the counting of heads. It is further natural in these circumstances for political partiesâbuilt around competing power-groupsâto be formed, leading to the establishment, not of government by peo¬ple, but of government by party: in other words, by one or another power-group.
The other is the organic or communitarian view, that puts man in his natural milieu as a responsible member of a responsible community. This view treats of man not as a particle of sand in an inorganic heap, but as a living cell in a larger organic entity. It is natural that in this view the emphasis should be laid more on âresponsibilityâ than on ârightâ, just as in the inorga¬nic view it is natural that it should be the opposite. When the individual lives in community with others, his rights flow from his responsibilities. It cannot be otherwise. That is why, in Gandhijiâs sociological thought, the emphasis is always laid upon responsibility.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->